This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Autumn Budget 2024 and key tax announcements of interest to private client practitioners; (2) Knight (as property and affairs deputy for BJB) v Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a Court of Protection case on reverse indemnity undertakings in a damages settlement; (3) G Goldsmith Ltd v HMRC, a cautionary tale about the need to obtain timely tax advice when undertaking property transactions; (4) new HMRC guidance for taxpayers on rental income; and (5) a review of the first year of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re MA & AA, a decision of interest to practitioners dealing with cases that require best interest decision making for two closely connected individuals; (2) the Department of Health and Social Care updates its statutory guidance on the Care Act 2014; (3) new HMRC guidance on IHT calculations for certain chargeable events in relation to trusts; (4) analysis of the third tranche of changes to the Charities Act 2022; (5) analysis of the UT’s decision in Alexander Beard that a distribution from a Jersey company did not constitute ‘dividends of a capital nature’; (6) HM Land Registry updates Practice Guide 6 (PG6)—Devolution on the death of a registered proprietor, and (7) representation of Equiom Trust (CI) Limited re Estate of Constantin Mattas, a Jersey decision involving several trust law issues, including that the principle of sovereign immunity would not, by itself, prevent a state from being trustee of a Jersey law express trust.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) further commentary on Budget 2025 and publication of Finance Bill 2026; (2) a contentious probate case which concerned the status of lifetime advances to one of four siblings by their deceased parent (Kaur v Kaur); (3) a decision of the Court of Appeal which permitted joinder of foreign heirs for the purposes of binding them to declaratory relief against a deceased’s estate (Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan); and (4) analysis of a High Court decision in which an English administration order was granted in respect of a Jersey company (Re Petrofac Ltd).

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) court finds that informal loans made by parents were enforceable; (2) FTT allows taxpayer’s claim for entrepreneurs’ relief on disposal of LLP interest (Wardle v HMRC); (3) FTT agrees that paddock was not part of the grounds of dwelling house for SDLT mixed-use purposes (Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Suterwalla); (4) constructive trusts and transfer for CGT purposes (Morgan v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; and (5) General Election 2024.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Braithwaite v Sir Benjamin Slade, Bt, concerning the construction of a trust deed and whether the trust beneficiary could compel a property sale and retain an interest in the net proceeds of sale without directing a replacement purchase; (2) the Office of the Public Guardian’s publication of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice under Mental Capacity Act 2005; (3) the Supreme Court departs from the Cheshire West ‘acid test’ for deprivation of liberty in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998; (4) analyis of McDaniels v Talbot, which illustrates the continuing importance of moral claims and family dynamics in adult-child claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; (5) the Charity Commission publishes guidance on trustee grant-making duties; (6) Kirishani v Major in which the court confirmed that the presumption against an intention to create legal relations may apply to unmarried cohabiting couples, and (7) publication of a new HMRC manual containing guidance on mandatory tax adviser registration.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) details of the HMCTS Probate Service Professional User Group’s information session on 24 September; (2) the Financial Conduct Authority warning of a rise in impersonation scams targeting older consumers; (3) analysis of the FTT decision in Lexgreen Services, which held held that a company can be liable for inheritance tax under section 201(1)(d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; (3) confirmation that from 1 September 2025, any individual can apply to access trust information held on the UK’s register of overseas entities that is not publicly available; (4) the second instalment of a three-part news analysis series on the upcoming failure to prevent fraud offence which explores the reasonable procedure defence and it’s challenges; and (5) the Chancellor confirms that the Budget will be published on 26 November.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Office of the Public Guardian upgrades processing time for LPA applications; (2) Newfield v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the UT held that the appellant failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test for admitting new evidence on appeal regarding the existence of a trust; (3) HMRC v The Taxpayer, where the UT considered a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity and third party disclosure request; (4) Lefort v HMRC, in which the Tribunal upheld HMRC’s Fixed Protection revocation, notwithstanding the taxpayer having been mistaken in continuing to make pension contributions after 6 April 2014; (5) Malik v Malik, in which the court upheld a defence for adverse possession by way of estoppel; (6) the Scottish government launches a consultation on digital assets and publishes its budget for 2025–26; and (7) MPs vote in favour of Assisted Dying Bill.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re Organ; House v Helme, in which the court gave guidance on the removal of executors for misconduct and their right to an indemnity; (2) University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AB (By his Litigation Friend), a case which considers what tools the Court of Protection has at its disposal to ensure compliance with best interests decisions made on behalf of P; (3) Bristol City Council v CC (By his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), where the court allowed disclosure of closed material concerning CC who lacked capacity; (4) Hackett v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in which the Upper Tribunal (Tax) held that compensation payments were taxable as income; (5) Smith v Campbell, in which the court set out a detailed analysis of legal authorities and evidence relating to several potential grounds for the removal of trustees; (6) Kearney v HMRC, a decision of the FTT which found that HMRC had validly assessed the taxpayer to CGT and penalties as a UK resident based on pre-2013 rules; and (7) analysis of the International Tax Compliance (Amendment) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/740 which updated the UK’s rules for Automatic Exchange of Information.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) OPG publishes updated professional deputy costs for England and Wales and updated property and financial affairs guidance for attorneys; (2) the Law Commission launches a consultation on a new regulatory framework for funerary methods; (3) HMRC updates its guidance on VAT and private schools; (4) Jusan Technologies Ltd v Uconinvest Llc, which considers the registration of shareholders and the power of directors to bind a company; (5) New Supplemental Swiss Rules for Trust, Estate and Foundation Disputes which will come into force on 1 July 2025; (6) analysis of HNW Lending Ltd v Lawrence, which provides useful guidance on the application of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999; and (7) two more free webinars.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the OPG publishes updated guidance on solicitor client accounts for deputyship funds; (2) the Charity Commission has updated its fundraising guidance CC20 and CC40; (3) Townsend v Epsom, in which the key issue was whether a clinical decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment could be characterised as falling outside the best interests framework and Court of Protection jurisdiction; (4) the ATT publishes FAQs on tax adviser mandatory registration with HMRC; (5) Potanin v The Charity Commission for England and Wales, a decision which sets a significant precedent for the Charity Commission's power to remove individuals from charities due to sanction-related risks. and (6) analysis of Smith v Campbell, which highlights the costs of trustee removal.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) MyHMCTS service updated to enable online tracking of paper applications to HMCTS Probate; (2) Will interpretation prevents charitable relief being claimed by estate (Marks (Executor of Hilda Marks) v HMRC); (3) property held on common intention constructive trust cases; (4) Court of Protection finds it is not in the best interests of a 57-year-old woman with paranoid schizophrenia to undergo investigations for suspected gynaecological cancer but that she should receive palliative care PG (Serious Medical Treatment), Re); (5) application for an injunction to restrain the sale of properties failed (Matthews v Matthews (a protected party, by his deputy Anne Minihane)); (6) HMRC Trusts and Estates Newsletter: August 2024; and (7) HM Land Registry updates Practice Guides 8, 19, 19A, 24, 25, 26, 49 and 82.

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Upper Tribunal confirms that a corporate settlor may incur liability for ten-year periodic IHT charge in Lexgreen Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; (2) A Local Authority v AC (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor), in which the Court of Protection held that capacity assessments for criminal proceedings are best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; (3) HMRC confirms next round of inheritance tax regulations for pension schemes; (4) Winehouse (suing as the personal representative of Amy Jade Winehouse, (deceased)) v Parry, in which the claimant was ordered to pay indemnity costs for unreasonably pursuing a speculative and unfounded property claim; (5) the First Tier Tribunal allows appeals that incorporation and restructuring arrangements are not caught by DOTAS rules in Property 118 Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; (6) McCarthy v Marshall, a judgment which provides important guidance on directors’ fiduciary duties, assigned claims and the unauthorised use of company funds’ and (7) the Court of Appeal’s guidance on the ‘tipping off’ offence under POCA 2002 in R v Osmond.